Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 4, 2012 at 5:30am

Maybe so, but in this particular initiative, the mayor himself said that the boat house "will be built with community input". From this thread I get the impression that the input process has not yet started.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room...

lorraine reder said:

The Chicago Park District Board of Directors are political appointees, they are not elected officials and do not have to listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 4, 2012 at 6:09am

Kevin, I'll keep my response as simple and clear as possible. 

I don't live in the Clark Park neighborhood. I "care" in a general sense what goes on in this or any park, but I'm not a frequent user of Clark Park. I have paddled out of Clark Park half a dozen times or so, I've ridden in The Garden, and I skate in McFetridge a couple times per year.

I have been a somewhat active participant in the Chainlink since late '08 or early '09 (over 5000 members ago). As the number of chainlink members has grown (to almost 7000), increasingly the forum has become a target for some advocates and marketers to reach what they believe to be a monolithic demographic of 7000 people. I refer to this phenomenon as outsiders showing up and handing out pitchforks and flaming torches. I can only speak for my self on this, but this is a trend I don't like. I've met you before, briefly, at a Tweed ride in the fall of '09. While I can't say I know you, I know and like people who know and like you, and that matters to me.

I have been a professional advocate for over 20 years-an attorney with a solo practice handling a broad range of civil matters, including municipal matters. I am a practitioner and student of advocacy, and I take advocacy very seriously.

I have attempted to be constructive and civil in my comments regarding the proposed boathouse. My most recent comment, pointing out that you would be submitting a petition containing factual inaccuracies was an attempt to be constructive and civil as well. It's an error that can be fixed prior to submitting the signatures. Bill D.'s post from 5/3 at about 10pm seems to imply that the proposed solution will be to keep the signatures, and edit the letter to which the signatures will be attached. This is not the solution I would have suggested, and I consider it to be ethically dubious at best. I have also suggested that CPAC is making significant errors in its advocacy efforts and was accused of "slamming" CPAC. There are very few black and white issues in the world. When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses? 

CPAC is an advisory body, not an advocacy group, and not the decision-maker. The Chicago Park District is an advisory body/decision-maker hybrid. CPD has an annual budget over which they have pretty broad discretion, but extra-budgetary actions require City Council approval, and of course, they need to get their budget approved every year.

So if CPAC really wants to make the leap from its advisory function to that of an effective advocate, I would suggest the following:

If you present facts, they had better be accurate. Presenting inaccurate facts undermines your credibility. If you don't know what the facts are, omit them until you can get them. Along these lines, keep your statements accurate. Stop saying "noone wants this boathouse in Clark Park." That doesn't even appear to be an accurate statement with respect to the members of the Chainlink.

Justifying material omissions in your argument with the excuse that you're a volunteer organization is a lot like saying the dog ate your homework. Volunteer organizations are going to be held to the same standard as a professional advocate. If you are unable to meet this standard of professionalism and accuracy, you need to get different volunteers or hire someone.

CPAC should have a strategy session to decide what its argument is. "Save the Garden" has morphed into "Save the bike/pedestrian bridge," and there even seems to be some developing inertia for "Save the butterflies, other pollinators and native grasses." 

The personal attacks have got to stop. Just because someone disagrees with CPAC, doesn't make them an asshole. There have been some very dismissive comments made about members of the chainlink who I know and like. You need to embrace the concept that this may very well be an issue upon which reasonable minds can differ.

If you want to turn the direction of this discussion, you need to lose the conspiracy theory bias. Posting here, or giving interviews to the Roscoe View Journal in which you assert that the process has been "hijacked by outside interests," that the members of the CPD Board of Directors are not fair and impartial, or that this decision is somehow a result of some entity "paying someone off" is not a good way to curry favor with the decision-makers.

There hasn't been much mention of Alderman Pawar anywhere in this discussion. You need to get the alderman onboard with your position if you want to have any hope of prevailing. Even then it's no guarantee, but without that support you're already sunk. Have you guys done any mailings or flyering to try to get more community involvement? 

You need to accept that the Chicago Park District has a responsibility to the entire City and not just the people who live near a particular park.

Good Luck. 

 

Kevin T. said:

Kevin, I would like to keep this plan as simple as possible. I really don't understand, and I don't expect a clear answer, why you really care what goes on in this park? Do you live in the neighborhood? Bill doesn't represent any "bad guy" group, he only wants what was originally proposed. This is an issue immediately affects many current users of Clark park mostly residents of the surrounding area. Everyone is treating this as though it were going to be on the next edition of 60 minutes.
I Kevin C said:

You do understand that you are going to present the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago with a petition bearing the signatures of 500 people that oppose the construction of:

1. "a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility;" [it's not] and

2. "introduce a 3 story building (into Clark Park)." [it's not]

Don't you?

Kevin T. said:

Petition is up to 486, go team!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 4, 2012 at 8:01am

Not taking any sides here, just offering my $0.02 to help, because I want to see CPAC succeed.  

Kevin T - I think you're doing a good thing with this petition.  I think that Kevin C has made some good tactical suggestions to strengthen CPAC's petition and position.  I don't think that he's tearing CPAC down, but is offering constructive criticism to help, as he describes below.

When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses? 

As a member of another PAC, I've found that advocacy is often a very important component of what a park advisory council does.  For that work to be effective, it needs to be accurate and factual, without name calling or insults.  It needs to represent the community.  To that end, a strategy session seems like a good idea.  I'm suggesting this as an interested observer, an occasional user of Clark Park, and someone who can identify with the prospect of an unwanted behemoth in their back yard ('cuz we're looking at a different kind of unwelcome behemoth here in Beverly).  

I want to see you succeed in negotiating with the Park District to get a plan that will meet the needs of the Clark Park community.  It's obvious to me that Kevin C does too, otherwise he wouldn't have spent time offering detailed, helpful ideas.

If you haven't already contacted Alderman Pawar, I hope you do so SOON.  He needs to hear from you and others on your team - in a rational, factual way. I wish you success in your efforts. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 4, 2012 at 8:36am

Thanks Kevin, it has been awhile since I've been on a tweed ride but I do remember meeting you, great time it 'twas. A social event for me nowadays involves taking the bike to Toys 'R Us for a box of pampers. It is always difficult to gauge the tone of these postings, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are having fun. This blasted thread is a continuation of an argument started on yelp, involving the same participants with minor characters hopping in and out kinda like the Odyssey. While not a member of CPAC, I can sympathize with them, the original simple plans were disregarded with no consideration to the long term volunteers. This is something we can all agree upon (I hope) and as a volunteer organization they most likely have'nt the resources to obtain the services of a professional advocacy group unless on a pro bono (unlikely in this case). They used any outlet available. While I can appreciate how a boathouse would be great, I believe is would not be the most beneficial plan in serving the immediate community. I love the simplicity of this park, I always have, it is a shame that all this energy has been spent trying to mediate a contest the was initiated on another site. This appears to involve more ego than actual desire to do the "right" thing, yes, it bothers me too as I remember the beginning of this site (#66) and I have found myself saying WTF more often than "Wow, that is cool"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 4, 2012 at 8:43am

Anne Alt said:

Not taking any sides here, just offering my $0.02 to help, because I want to see CPAC succeed.  

Kevin T - I think you're doing a good thing with this petition.  I think that Kevin C has made some good tactical suggestions to strengthen CPAC's petition and position.  I don't think that he's tearing CPAC down, but is offering constructive criticism to help, as he describes below.

When I prepare for trial, or some quasi-judicial presentation, I benefit most from peer discussions with people who are critical of the weaknesses in my case. I know what my winning arguments are. How am I going to handle the weaknesses? 

As a member of another PAC, I've found that advocacy is often a very important component of what a park advisory council does.  For that work to be effective, it needs to be accurate and factual, without name calling or insults.  It needs to represent the community.  To that end, a strategy session seems like a good idea.  I'm suggesting this as an interested observer, an occasional user of Clark Park, and someone who can identify with the prospect of an unwanted behemoth in their back yard ('cuz we're looking at a different kind of unwelcome behemoth here in Beverly).  

I want to see you succeed in negotiating with the Park District to get a plan that will meet the needs of the Clark Park community.  It's obvious to me that Kevin C does too, otherwise he wouldn't have spent time offering detailed, helpful ideas.

If you haven't already contacted Alderman Pawar, I hope you do so SOON.  He needs to hear from you and others on your team - in a rational, factual way. I wish you success in your efforts. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 4, 2012 at 8:47am

Hi Anne, Thanks, but I am only a signer, I didn't initiate it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 4, 2012 at 8:49am

Good advice tho!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 4, 2012 at 10:45am

Constructive criticism is always good, it will do no good to be defensive, when the goal is for our park to succeed and for the community to get what it needs from the current situation. Of course we are and have been in communication with all levels in the political spectrum, but assuming that we should know every detail of what the city and the park district intend to do and to build at Clark Park, when we had very limited information before it happened, it is kind of like asking the guy who is run over by the truck, why he cannot remember the make and model!   Even the alderman of the 47th ward was surprised when he saw that what they intended to build was 40,000 SF on two floors! We immediately appeared in front of the Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners and stated our case for the smaller canoe/kayak boathouse, new concession stand, water source, bathrooms and bike rental. Yes, the height of the rowing building in the petition was incorrect, but our position is and was, that if a building is on fire ,you should intend to put it out as quickly as possible, then the the only real response is whether you are going to watch others do it or grab a bucket??  The facts of the case are undisputed regarding the  intended construction of the rowing facility and boathouse. No, we are not going to gloss over the incorrectly stated number of floors, despite the fact that it really is not that important to our argument. Errors are made and we acknowledge this error now and will do so when the petition is presented. We are clearly not responsible for every misstatement and incorrect assertion on this forum, even if they say they support the park or the council. It would be like blaming the misdeeds of John Edwards or Herman Cain on all Democrats or all Republicans!!

As far as the ill tempered comments on the forum - these do not help anyone's case, those who have an opinion on any side of several issues which are being discussed. CPAC should not be chastised in particular for these comments, since they have clearly come from all angles, and do not reflect any strategy or particular intention of the group. 

Hopefully, if some of our advisors on the forum would like to actually get involved in the issue, perhaps they will attend an advisory council meeting and see what we are up to. Next meeting is Tuesday May 15th at 7PM, Revere Park. Over the years, we have been a very effective advocate for the park - convincing the city to purchase ten litter strewn abandoned acres from United Parcel Service, conducting numerous cleanups and paintouts, installing gardens and fencing within the park, successfully lobbying for construction of the first public canoe launch on the north branch, sponsoring the presentation which led to official sanctioning of the BMX track known as the "garden". We have an annual fund raiser which is a "twilight canoe" , which has funded many improvements to the park. We know have a fund started to build a playground in the park.  Also, we hatched an idea about ten years ago to build a ped/bike bridge across the river at Roscoe, which has received wide support. We would encourage any neighbors or forum participants interested in preserving green space, to come out and get involved. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 4, 2012 at 1:14pm

Wish I did not have our sailmaker coming to town for a practice scheduled on the 12th otherwise I would have been iin for the cleanup.

Carter please stop being so black&white with the anti bike statements. Most, if not all, of the folks on this site are quite pro bike.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 4, 2012 at 1:17pm

I didn't want to bump the thread needlessly, but I think the new thread name is a significant step in the right direction. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lorraine reder on May 4, 2012 at 1:52pm

Duppie said:

Maybe so, but in this particular initiative, the mayor himself said that the boat house "will be built with community input". From this thread I get the impression that the input process has not yet started.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room...

lorraine reder said:

The Chicago Park District Board of Directors are political appointees, they are not elected officials and do not have to listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 5, 2012 at 10:46am

Dill Pickle just lost a customer.

You said it yourself that being pro-boathouse was anti-bike:

"

Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."

The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."

So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist."

Did it ever occur to you that people could want one thing more than another and just be 'pro' what they want without being 'anti' anything?  If somebody, in a given situation, is for one thing at the expense of another it does not mean they are 'anti' the other, they just value one thing over the other.  When you tell people they are 'anti' something or make their end of an argument a negative or 'bad' side of the issue rather than just another viewpoint you make them defensive and upset; it is not a path to a fruitful discussion just to a shit-show that degrades into hurt feelings and people taking it personally just like this whole thing has.

Of course there is also the concept that brief, clear and simple statements work best for arguing issues and you have missed that mark completely as well so I am just guessing you are shitty at communicating with people in a positive manner...

As for the park I, personally, could give to shits what gets built there, how much stays green space or if they just pave the whole thing over into a parking lot; I was just weighing in because I *tried* to read this thread to get useful info about what was happening in the park and was overwhelmed by what an asshat you were.

Carter O'Brien said:

Let me clarify this one last time, then

I didn't say anyone who wants to row or doesn't care about this bridge hates cyclists or biking, that's obviously ridiculous. 

What I said  - and am saying - is supporting a private boathouse instead of a public ped/cycling bridge is anti-bike. It is anti-bike ON THIS ISSUE, it is choosing a project which favors people of means making a land grab on a public area which otherwise could be a multi-purpose win-win for many.

The metric is 8 - 80, that's ATA's, and one which stems spiritually from the Iroquois Federation's 7 generations rule of thumb.  A bike/ped bridge wins on every count - kids, teens, adults, families, seniors would all benefit.

This is NOT a complex issue.  That's where you are dead wrong.  This is cut and dry.  The community had existing plans which left a healthy amount of open space yet also improved facilities for the canoers, kayakers and other park users, and which also included the bridge.  Now we have 11th hour schemery and a land grab by a small and clearly well-connected group.

I know which side I'm on.

As for what I do?  A funny demand coming from an anonymous poster, but what the hell, I don't generally toot my own horn but I'll give it a shot.

So let's see - I taught in CPS, including a special ed class that was largely full of kids from Cabrini Green.  I've worked in the non-profit sector at the Field Museum for 15 years, helping my division of some 150+ people do groundbreaking scientific research. I've also been on the green team that entire time, and have chaired it for about the last 7.  We were the first museum in the country to have a shared bikes program, something I personally walked through the system from concept to implementation:

http://fieldmuseum.org/about/field-museum-launches-shared-bike-prog...

I co-founded Bike Walk Logan Square last year:

http://bikewalklogansquare.wordpress.com/

Alas, I cannot say I have gotten a bridge built.

I became a member of the old Bike Federation in maybe 98.  They will have my support until the day I die just for the North Avenue bike path overhaul.  The Navy Pier Flyover is what I recognize as a modern-day miracle.

I Chair the Dill Pickle Co-Op's Finance Committee and we are in final stages of expansion planning, when that's done I'll get back involved more on the cycling front.

Oh, and Chicago Fair Trade invented an award for me:

http://www.chicagofairtrade.org/aboutus/information-about-us/174-cf...

There are now three, it's an amazing community to be a part of. 

And I'm a Treekeeper (badge #793, I love saying that). 

I have also probably worked in some capacity on about 8 - 10 political campaigns, I am most proud of getting on board and stumping for Scot Waguespack when nobody gave him a snowball's chance in hell of unseating a hack leftover from the Rostenkowski machine - coincidentally, that bozo promised our neighborhood back in the late 90s that he was going to fix the Fullerton, Elston & Damen intersection, making it more friendly for traffic of all types.  It's Scott Waguespack that has actually done the work which is going to make that happen.

It is humbling to have been privileged to work with all the people I have to improve the City.  I know the difference between an improvement for the people and a land grab. 

I really don't care what you think of me, and I don't care if I'm alienating you or anyone else, because as I see it there is no "on the fence" here, this is as close to a 100% good-vs-evil situation as I have ever seen in Chicago, using Epton vs. Washington as my barometer for that. 

I believe that answers your questions.

Now, can you tell me why it is you feel that the 40,000 people in Avondale and 74,000 people in Logan Square don't deserve a safe path east across the river?  Or why the people who take care of Clark Park and have been striving to make it better for everyone should be subjected to this kind of disrespect from their government?

notoriousDUG said:

Ya know what buddy, go f-yerself and the horse you rode in on and, while I am at it, let it be known that in my book any cause you are a part of needs to be pretty damn worthy or I am going to oppose it just on the general principal of you being involved.  Never before have I seen a person not only be horrible at making their case but also excel at damaging it. 

Not only do I not post anonymously here (yeah, it's a screen name but if you are active on this board you not only probably know my full name but the bike shop I work at) but I come out to enough events that most folks on here have meet me for real; where have you been?  Who do you know?  And, most importantly, who in the hell are you to tell me if I am part of the problem or not!?  What do you know about me that allows you to declare me 'anti-bike' because I am not siding with you on an complex issue you never seem to be able to give us all the facts on?

Are you really so simple minded you think you can just get people to blindly follow your cause by accusing them of not being supportive of cycling or trying to make it seem like we have been invaded by rowers?  I have bad news for you junior; the folks here are smarter than that.

Let me ask you this: What have YOU done about advocating for cycling beyond bullied people here and been a jerk about the bike bridge?  What are YOU doing to get people on bikes?  Where are you volunteering your time?  What bike organizations are you volunteering or helping at?  You want to challenge me on being pro/anti-bike bring it on because I do not think there is a person here who knows me that would tell you I am not, on the whole, very pro-bike and work at helping to make biking better.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• …
• 28
• Next ›
• Page